To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
qgjowk.jpg


These two men raised a child together. 32 years later, he blew up a planet. Checkmate, gay marriage debate!
 
I see two basic or fundamental points of disagreement here. All the conversation and argument is about sin, freedom, individual liberty, religious freedom, states rights, etc. This is all on the surface. The roots of this argument are only two fundamental issues.

1. Is homosexuality a choice or a genetic condition?

2. Is marriage a policy/law/statute or a basic human right?

As long as we disagree over these two fundamental issues, we will never agree on the Supreme Court decision.

The Right believes 1) Choice, 2)Policy/law/statute. Therefore the arguments of sin, un-natural, goes against tradition, should be decided by the States, a matter of religious freedom, etc. In this context, the follow on of bestiality, polygamy, incest, make up a slippery slope. This would all make perfect sense and I would agree whole heartedly... But

The Left believes 1)Genetic condition, 2) Basic human right. Therefore, it makes sense that SCOTUS would provide equal protection, that all humans should be treated equally, religious discrimination is false, etc. Also, if this is true, bestiality, polygamy, incests, don't naturally follow and are non-issues.

When those two premisses are considered, the follow on arguments of each side make perfect sense and are each very defensible.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that this is a genetic condition and also that so much of human life is effected by marriage that it must be considered a basic human right. As a straight, male, conservative Christian, I've known enough gays to believe this. My gay friends can't chose to be straight any more than I could chose to be gay. It is a condition built in from birth. And as such, SCOTUS owes them equal protection under the law.
 
Gsxrpilot said:
I see two basic or fundamental points of disagreement here. All the conversation and argument is about sin, freedom, individual liberty, religious freedom, states rights, etc. This is all on the surface. The roots of this argument are only two fundamental issues.

1. Is homosexuality a choice or a genetic condition?

2. Is marriage a policy/law/statute or a basic human right?

As long as we disagree over these two fundamental issues, we will never agree on the Supreme Court
Click to expand...

Your first premise is incorrect and has been since the 1950s if not earlier. The true premise is: is homosexual behavior a choice?

It is beyond doubt that homosexual behavior is a choice. I know it's an unpopular thought, but it's true.
 
warthog1984 said:
It is beyond doubt that homosexual behavior is a choice. I know it's an unpopular thought, but it's true.
Click to expand...

All behavior is a choice (if you believe in free will, I suppose). But for the purposes of this thread - do you think being attracted to the same sex is a choice?

I personally don't see any way that it can be, as I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to women. I just am.
 
kayoh190 said:
All behavior is a choice (if you believe in free will, I suppose). But for the purposes of this thread - do you think being attracted to the same sex is a choice?

I personally don't see any way that it can be, as I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to women. I just am.
Click to expand...

I believe there have been some studies which concluded that sexual attraction is not a conscious choice. I think the question of what influences the unconscious choice is still open but that may just be wishful thinking on some researchers part.
 
warthog1984 said:
Your first premise is incorrect and has been since the 1950s if not earlier. The true premise is: is homosexual behavior a choice?

It is beyond doubt that homosexual behavior is a choice. I know it's an unpopular thought, but it's true.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't about the act. We aren't talking about the act. We are talking about the right to obtain all the benefits which the government has chosen to dispense to married couples.

The real underlying issue is that hetrosexual men as squicked by the thought of guys having sex together.
 
kayoh190 said:
All behavior is a choice (if you believe in free will, I suppose). But for the purposes of this thread - do you think being attracted to the same sex is a choice?

I personally don't see any way that it can be, as I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to women. I just am.
Click to expand...

From a Christian perspective this may be viewed as irrelevant. It could be argued that we are all born with predispositions that could be seen as unhealthy for physical or spiritual reasons. To include things related to the opposite sex as well as the same sex.

Having said that as was stated above it is impossible to hold someone who doesn't believe as you do to the same moral standard.
 
Clark1961 said:
I believe there have been some studies which concluded that sexual attraction is not a conscious choice. I think the question of what influences the unconscious choice is still open but that may just be wishful thinking on some researchers part.
Click to expand...

If it is a choice then all hetrosexuals should remember making that decision. Choosing your love interest is a huge, huge decision. We should all remember where we were when we made the decision and what we were thinking at that time. I confess that I do not recall choosing to find men sexually attractive. It just seemed to happen in the tween years.
 
Kristin said:
Marriage isn't about the act. We aren't talking about the act. We are talking about the right to obtain all the benefits which the government has chosen to dispense to married couples.

The real underlying issue is that hetrosexual men as squicked by the thought of guys having sex together.
Click to expand...

I don't mind if they do if it counts for anything. And squicked is hopefully not a typo because that's a great word
 
Kristin said:
Marriage isn't about the act. We aren't talking about the act. We are talking about the right to obtain all the benefits which the government has chosen to dispense to married couples.

The real underlying issue is that hetrosexual men as squicked by the thought of guys having sex together.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, that part of it concerns me the least. In fact, it doesn't even enter in to the equation. The fact of the matter is I'm not kissing a gay man. Not because he's gay, I just don't kiss men. The fact that a deeock may have been in his mouth last night is irrelevant.

That's also, by the way, why I don't kiss recently married women or single women with boyfriends.
 
Kristin said:
If it is a choice then all hetrosexuals should remember making that decision. Choosing your love interest is a huge, huge decision. We should all remember where we were when we made the decision and what we were thinking at that time. I confess that I do not recall choosing to find men sexually attractive. It just seemed to happen in the tween years.
Click to expand...

That's the unconscious part and I believe research results show that the choice is unconcious in most people.
 
Clark1961 said:
That's the unconscious part and I believe research results show that the choice is unconcious in most people.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough my nephew is gay. His boyfriend is an identical twin. If it is a born thing, why isn't his identical twin, with the same DNA, a homosexual?
 
Kristin said:
Marriage isn't about the act. We aren't talking about the act.
Click to expand...

Bzzt. Marriage is entirely about the act. secular unions are too, hence the physical requirements to get a license.

Kristin said:
If it is a choice then all hetrosexuals should remember making that decision. Choosing your love interest is a huge, huge decision. We should all remember where we were when we made the decision and what we were thinking at that time.
Click to expand...

All heterosexuals and homosexuals not suffering from amnesia *do* remember that decision.

You seem to have trouble comprehending this, but behavior is different from tendencies or a self image. You might not remember the first time an idle thought crossed your mind, but you should remember choosing to turn thought into action and contemplation into decision.
 
Kritchlow said:
Interestingly enough my nephew is gay. His boyfriend is an identical twin. If it is a born thing, why isn't his identical twin, with the same DNA, a homosexual?
Click to expand...

I believe the influences on the unconcious decision remain an open question. In other words, it may or may not be a born thing but it is an unconcious thing.

And then again, maybe his identical twin is a repressed homosexual...there are tests...
 
It's not DNA and it's not a choice. It is a preference. Big difference between the three. How a preference? It is just like whether or not you like shrimp, seafood, or anything else. Were you born liking shrimp? Maybe/maybe not. Can you stop liking it? Certainly not if you do. My feeling is to each his own. If you like a hairy man's azz, good for you. Not my cup of tea. If you like shrimp (I don't), good for you. Again, not my cup of tea. BTW, eating shrimp is a sin according to the Bible.
 
ahkahn said:
It's not DNA and it's not a choice. It is a preference. Big difference between the three. How a preference? It is just like whether or not you like shrimp, seafood, or anything else. Were you born liking shrimp? Maybe/maybe not. Can you stop liking it? Certainly not if you do. My feeling is to each his own. If you like a hairy man's azz, good for you. Not my cup of tea. If you like shrimp (I don't), good for you. Again, not my cup of tea. BTW, eating shrimp is a sin according to the Bible.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing your point, but I'm curious, why and where does the bible say you can't eat shrimp? (Full disclosure, I love to eat shrimp and I suspect whatever your answer is will not cause me to quit eating them but I would really like to hear it.)
 
I applaud the below and I bet this gets more popular in the years to come......


Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

"The constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, DC.
I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington."
 
Sac Arrow said:
That reference says I can't eat KFC, as far as I can tell. I need an answer in plain English.
Click to expand...

"All the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. 11And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean. 12Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you."

Translated: Shrimp do not have fins and scales - they are unclean, so don't eat them.
 
Sac Arrow said:
By that standard Christians should not eat fish.
Click to expand...

Read it again. Left to right, top to bottom. Group words together to form sentences. Take tylenol for any headaches, midol for any cramps.
 
I guess I'm unclean.

I just want to eat my shrimp, not marry them.
 
EdFred said:
I remember that. What is it with people from the south. Her, that teen South Carolina contestant...
Click to expand...

Is it the north or the south that has the most recent Cow ****ing thread going on right now? I'll take hot chicks with no brains over cows.
 
Kritchlow said:
Interestingly enough my nephew is gay. His boyfriend is an identical twin. If it is a born thing, why isn't his identical twin, with the same DNA, a homosexual?
Click to expand...

Epigenetics, methylation, intrauterine hormone influences (twins don't necessarily have equal circulatory access) all affect outcomes.

Identical twins aren't identical in every respect.

Paul
 
bartmc said:
Is it the north or the south that has the most recent Cow ****ing thread going on right now? I'll take hot chicks with no brains over cows.
Click to expand...

It's not reported in the south, because down there it isn't news, it's a pastime.
 
Shellfish = Unclean per the Bible.
Man laying with man = Unclean per the Bible.
Night flying without spare fuses = Unclean per the FAR.
 
ahkahn said:
Shellfish = Unclean per the Bible.
Man laying with man = Unclean per the Bible.
Night flying without spare fuses = Unclean per the FAR.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. Except I have breakers, so, N/A.
 
warthog1984 said:
Your first premise is incorrect and has been since the 1950s if not earlier. The true premise is: is homosexual behavior a choice?



It is beyond doubt that homosexual behavior is a choice. I know it's an unpopular thought, but it's true.
Click to expand...


Do you have to make a choice to be straight every day? That's got to be a horrible way for you to live.

How often do you switch your choices?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoseCuervo said:
Do you have to make a choice to be straight every day? That's got to be a horrible way for you to live.

How often do you switch your choices?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I choose not to do a number of activities every day. It helps to read what someone says.

All behavior is a choice. Desire!=behavior.
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
Believe it or not, that part of it concerns me the least. In fact, it doesn't even enter in to the equation. The fact of the matter is I'm not kissing a gay man. Not because he's gay, I just don't kiss men. The fact that a deeock may have been in his mouth last night is irrelevant.

That's also, by the way, why I don't kiss recently married women or single women with boyfriends.
Click to expand...

So say you. Then why do you claim that the only problem is the homosexual act which you state is a choice?

Regardless, gay marriage is not about the act. It is about equal access to the benefits.
 
warthog1984 said:
Bzzt. Marriage is entirely about the act. secular unions are too, hence the physical requirements to get a license.



All heterosexuals and homosexuals not suffering from amnesia *do* remember that decision.

You seem to have trouble comprehending this, but behavior is different from tendencies or a self image. You might not remember the first time an idle thought crossed your mind, but you should remember choosing to turn thought into action and contemplation into decision.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember the act that followed the inclination. I didn't choose the inclination and neither did you.

We are talking about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples. We are not talking about whether the sex act is legal or not. That has been decided awhile ago.

What is your problem with gay sex, other than you were not wired to be interested in it? Does the thought of two women having sex bother you as much as the thought of two men having sex? Most honest men I know would say that two women having sex is pretty interesting.
 
Gsxrpilot said:
I see two basic or fundamental points of disagreement here. All the conversation and argument is about sin, freedom, individual liberty, religious freedom, states rights, etc. This is all on the surface. The roots of this argument are only two fundamental issues.

1. Is homosexuality a choice or a genetic condition?

2. Is marriage a policy/law/statute or a basic human right?

As long as we disagree over these two fundamental issues, we will never agree on the Supreme Court decision.

The Right believes 1) Choice, 2)Policy/law/statute. Therefore the arguments of sin, un-natural, goes against tradition, should be decided by the States, a matter of religious freedom, etc. In this context, the follow on of bestiality, polygamy, incest, make up a slippery slope. This would all make perfect sense and I would agree whole heartedly... But

The Left believes 1)Genetic condition, 2) Basic human right. Therefore, it makes sense that SCOTUS would provide equal protection, that all humans should be treated equally, religious discrimination is false, etc. Also, if this is true, bestiality, polygamy, incests, don't naturally follow and are non-issues.

When those two premisses are considered, the follow on arguments of each side make perfect sense and are each very defensible.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that this is a genetic condition and also that so much of human life is effected by marriage that it must be considered a basic human right. As a straight, male, conservative Christian, I've known enough gays to believe this. My gay friends can't chose to be straight any more than I could chose to be gay. It is a condition built in from birth. And as such, SCOTUS owes them equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

The Left / Right dichotomy is inadequate on so many levels, and this is one of them.

People with libertarian leanings with regard to civil liberties, without respect to where they may fall regarding other matters, don't think it through quite so extensively. The only question we ask is does the thing in question tangibly hurt anyone else. If the answer is "No," then it need not be illegal.

I am not God. I believe that there is a God, however, which makes life much easier for me. Because there is a God, I don't have to worry about deciding what is moral behavior for other people and how those who don't comply should be punished. I just let God worry about all that. He's going to be up all night, anyway.

That's a good thing, too, because just running my own life is a full-time job for me. I haven't the time nor the wisdom to run other people's lives. But thankfully, neither have I the inclination to do so; so it all works out pretty well.

Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top